Thursday, August 08, 2013

It seems ironic that in one and the same article, Aaron Taylor applauds a piece of communication despite the fact that it was widely misrepresented and then turns right around and counsels Christians not to use certain kinds of communication precisely because they will be misrepresented

Taylor offers advice on how the Church can more effectively articulate its position on homosexuality, the chief of which is to abandon language that uses expressions like "intrinsically disordered." Such language, which Pope Francis avoided in his Rio comments (which were grossly distorted by the secular world), lends itself to being grossly distorted by the secular world.

In fact, the media reaction to the Pope's comments, comments with which Taylor begins his remarks, offers a lesson exactly the opposite to that which Taylor gives us.

But in addition to the inherent inconsistency of Taylor's article, this kind of perspective (a perspective which seems be one part creative theology and five parts public relations) is a dangerous stance from which to offer advice to the Church. Obviously the Church has to take account of how its message is received, which it does every time it issues a pronouncement in a language other than Latin. But crafting the message should never compromise its content.

It is easy for the kind of advice offered by Taylor to lapse into a kind of consequentialism that would inevitably result in the Church acting in ways that misrepresent its position--and worse.

In addition, it is not clear to me that because Aquinas says in one place that the act of sex outside of marriage is “intrinsically disordered” that he therefore believes that homosexual proclivity is itself not intrinsically disordered in a way that heterosexual fornication is not.

In fact, Aquinas draws a distinction in Question 154 of the Second Part of the Summa Theologica between some lustful vices, which are natural but not in accord with right reason, and other acts (e.g., masturbation, bestiality, homosexuality, and unnatural sexual relations between heterosexuals), which are not only not in accord with right reason, but which are, in addition, unnatural.

Both fornication and homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered,” but the latter are, in addition, according to Thomas, unnatural. This is, of course, backed up by the words of Paul in Romans, where he calls homosexual acts sin “against nature.”

I realize the subject here is whether we should use the term “intrinsically disordered,” but appealing to Thomas will only make things worse, since, in addition to being intrinsically disordered, Thomas would have us also calling them “unnatural,” a term not exactly designed to fix the PR problem Taylor is so concerned to fix.

And so it is hard to fathom, in a discussion in which Aquinas is apparently considered authoritative, how Taylor can say, “the real moral absolute for Catholics in the domain of sex is the one against non-procreative acts, regardless of either the gender or the sexual orientation of the participants.” There really are no other particular (or “real”) moral distinctions the Church draws?

I suggest Taylor spend a little more time in the Summa, where numerous other important distinctions are drawn.It would cure him of this misconception fairly quickly.

Then there is the discussion of the advantages of using expressions such as “exceptionless moral norms” and “moral absolutes,” which takes us from John Stuart Mill (who lurks behind the first part of Taylor's post) to Kant (who seems to haunt the second part).

Taylor thinks the Kantian approach will do the PR trick, which, whatever the advantages he thinks it has (which are questionable), have the additional disadvantage of distorting the traditional moral teaching of the Church. Traditionally, the Church's ethical teaching has been neither consequentialist (as would be the result of the PR emphasis) nor deontological (which his language of “moral absolutes” would promote).

The Church’s main ethical tradition is that of virtue ethics, which is founded on the idea (derived both Aristotle and Aquinas, as well as the Apostle Paul) that certain things are natural and unnatural—which is why it can speak an ethical language with terms like “intrinsic.” This is the tradition which Taylor would have us abandon.

I sympathize with Taylor's motivations and I’m sure there are better ways to present the truths of the Church than many are now doing. But the fact is that as long as the Church opposes homosexuality in any way, shape, or form, any statement by the Church or its members is going to be ill-received by the “gay community”-- a group of people with which, as a group, Taylor seems to be so concerned that the Church have good relations.

There may be a way to do things differently when it comes to a public dialogue on homosexuality, but abandoning the traditional moral categories the Church has used for centuries is not the way to do it. And if we're going to lose the public battle on this issue, which looks likely, we might as well do it with our moral theology intact, so that, in a better time, when the "gay community" will have been swept away by history, the Church can speak it anew.

16 comments:

Just as the "gay community" (notice that he didn't say "homosexuals") came into being recently, so it may vanish someday. And then perhaps the church can once again talk with homosexuals about their sin in the same way she talks with others about theirs.

I supposed by some historical process vaguely opposite of that which brought it into existence. There have always been homosexuals, but only recently has there been a "gay community."

The people who think that it is just unthinkable that anyone could have moral beliefs under which homosexuality is considered immoral and who want to stamp out all opposition through laws that violate their Constitutional right to free exercise of religion--and who think their view will always prevail--don't have any kind of historical perspective.

Right, I will assume then that what you mean is not outright murder, but merely using the police to terrorize and intimidate them again, like police in at least one community in Louisiana still do in violation of the Constitution, and depriving them of housing and employment so that they are forced back into the closet by you "good" people. At least you are revealing your true colors. I always figured that when you were whining about a lack of tolerance for homophobes and racists it was just a tactic, and I was right, since you are just jonesing for the day you can use repression and fear to shove LGBT people back into the closet.

"And if we're going to lose the public battle on this issue, which looks likely, we might as well do it with our moral theology intact, so that, in a better time, when the "gay community" will have been swept away by history, the Church can speak it anew."

There are only so many ways that people get "swept away", and most of them are very unpleasant.

What you are indicating, Martin, is that you want homosexuals in the closet, just like the good old days. Now what motivates people to keep silent and hide a vital part of their nature? Fear. Unless homosexuals are afraid of something, whether its the police and neo-nazi gangs terrorizing them in Russia, or fear of losing their jobs and their homes, what else could possibly motivate them to hide from society like you want them to?

"it is not clear to me that because Aquinas says in one place that the act of sex outside of marriage is “intrinsically disordered” that he therefore believes that homosexual proclivity is itself not intrinsically disordered in a way that heterosexual fornication is not."

I have always wondered why the "co-habitating community" has not been up in arms with the Church.

If I am mischaracterizing you, why don't you explain how you think history would sweep away the gay community without a campaign of fear and intimidation to force LGBT people back into the closet?Who do you think makes up the gay community? What do you think people who share common interests do? If there are homosexuals who aren't living in fear of being outed and their lives destroyed, they are going to openly socialize with each other and form a community, just like anyone else would. And whether you will admit it or not, your expressed desire that the gay community just disappear reveals that your demands for tolerance for unpopular ideas are just empty words when it comes to ideas you don't like.

No comment from Martin as to what he actually had in mind. I think all we have to do is look to Russia to know; Putin's attack on free speech rights concerning homosexuality has been endorsed by Bryan Fischer with the American Family Association.

This may be futile, since Martin has ignored my requests to explain his totally innocuous desire to sweep the gay community away, but here is an article about a Pastor being sued for crimes against humanity for his efforts to promote the persecution of homosexuals in Uganda, and has bragged about his role in getting Russia to limit the free speech rights of homosexuals, which are the sort of measures which would likely be necessary to achieve Martin's aim of shoving homosexuals back into the closet.

I have stated repeatedly that the problem with legalization of SSM, from the Christian perspective, is that we will be forced to approve of something our religions tells us we cannot approve of.

I have been assured repeatedly that, just because SSM is becoming recognized, it does not mean that I as a Christian wouldn't retain my right to disapprove of such marriage.

Well, it didn't take long...

From the Goldberg Files: "The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a photographer had no right to refuse a job shooting a gay wedding. Why a gay couple would want a photographer who doesn't approve of them is beyond me (more on that in a moment). And if a businessman wants to forego making a profit, that should probably be its own punishment. The justices saw it differently."

So I'm a Christian photographer, I don't approve of a gay marriage ceremony, and I don't want to participate in one. All I have to do is just say 'no', right?

Wrong. I have to participate. It's a free country, after all. I'm free to disapprove what I'm being forced to do.

> Why a gay couple would want a photographer who doesn't approve of them is beyond me

That's easy. Same reason why people rub a kitten's nose in it when he goes outside the box.